/sci/ - Science & Math

>>15291363
kek

reminder that this fraud believes in free will

>>15291363
Independently of any argument about eliminative materialism, what's popular has nothing to do with truth or evidence. Young earth creationism was once the most popular position in spite of all evidence to the contrary. In certain places its equivalent still is the most popular position.

>Dennett
Idealist false flagger hands typed this

>>15291363
imagine being retarded OP, imagine tfw it nothing feels different

>>15291363
Dennett isn't an eliminative materialist. Eliminative materialism is the belief that psychological states as popularly described are folk theories and not accurate to what is happening. Example instead of saying I am sad you will describe your dopamine level as being low ect. Idea is eventually neurological descriptions will replace our folk descriptions of how things are. Dennett is opposite of this. He believes in social constructivism and it is very real,

i don't understand what 'eliminative materialism' is.

>>15291381
He proved that qualia are just "folk psychology".

>>15291398
He just doesn't like qualia so he says they aren't real. No evidence or arguments involved.

>>15291399
He has very sound arguments. Just admit you didn't read him.

>>15291363
Because you cannot eliminate consciousness when you are suffering from raw, chronic pain. At that point, it would be very useful if eliminative materialism could eliminate consciousness, but it can't. You are left with what you cannot deny.

>>15291363
>All the evidence from neuroscience and cognitive science points towards consciousness being an illusion.
How do you know the evidence from neuroscience and cognitive science isn't an illusion?

>>15291363
>>>15291363 (OP)
>Because you cannot eliminate consciousness when you are suffering from raw, chronic pain. At that point, it would be very useful if eliminative materialism could eliminate consciousness, but it can't. You are left with what you cannot deny.


For there to be an illusion, there must be the experience of that illusion. What is this nonsense view point?

>>15291964
Why do morons like you never get tired of repeating this embarrassing vomit of an argument?

>>15292004

What's YOUR argument? To call something an illusion as if it doesn't exist makes no sense because there has to be an experience of the so called illusion.

>>15291363
> "Consciousness is but an illusion!" says Dennett to the Big Pharma scientists working on mood stabilizers and color correcting lenses.
They ignore him and go back to making billions.

>>15292004

Maybe one day you'll actually have the courage to try and refute it rather than hiding behind sophistry

>>15291363
Because atheists are generally too retarded to see the contradiction of their conception of materialism

>>15291363
>All the evidence from neuroscience and cognitive science points towards consciousness being an illusion
Lol no

>>15291367
If you have someone who believes in free will whilst also in determined scientific causality you can safely say that they've the intellectual integrity of scholastics pontificating about the existence of god.

>>15292548

Yeah. Determinists must disbelieve free will, which makes them zombies.

>>15291381
Lmao. Replacing the word "sadness" with the words "low dopamine" doesn't get rid of the subjective mental state. This is like people who think using the word "handicapable" changes the fact that people are handicapped.

>>15291363
Because it's incredibly wrong
Every assumption is ultimately based on unprovable. From "brain does the thinking" to "2+2=4" to " a and not a can't both be true". Every statement, once you dig enough, is ultimately unproveable
All except one. The fact that I (you) are conscious is undisputeable

>>15292548
it has nothing to do with his other beliefs. free will is just incoherent.

>>15292683
Materialists have everything ass backwards. The conjure up this fantasy world of mathematical abstractions in physics and claim that it's the basis of reality, without noticing that this supposed basis of reality is based entirely within consciousness.

>>15292004
>STOP HECKIN POSTING THINGS THAT MAKE ME LOOK STUPID BECAUSE I CAN'T ANSWER THEM!
Morons calling people morons. How meta. Materialists are such pilpuling slimy little Jews

>>15292706
Kant made a good case for it. The key is not to actually maintain it, but only deny the possibility of proving it fundamentally.

Determinism is such a brutal blackpill lmao.

>>15292834
>Determinism is such a brutal blackpill
there's nothing blackpilling about a good life which was completely determined. unpleasant experiences are what's blackpilling. the notion that one "freely chooses" to experience unpleasant experiences does nothing to mitigate their unpleasantness.

>>15292847
I meant it presuming that, being here, the unpleasantly determined life was a given. It is.

https://nintil.com/consciousness-and-its-discontents

>What theories do I think are probably true, with probabilities, as of today:

>1. Neutral monism/Panpsychism(60%)
>2. Interactionist dualism(30%)
>3. Epiphenomenalism(10%)
>4. Idealism(~epsilon%)
>5. Non-interactionist dualism(~epsilon%)
>6. Identity theory(~0% as it rejects consciousness as real)
>7. Eliminativism(~0% as it rejects consciousness as real)

>>15292683
>>15292771

This and this. Notice how they actually never refute it with anything other than their personal faith.

>>15293224
>personal faith
>talking to himself/yes men again
Lmao, as others have said, materialism must be the strangest religion. It relies entirely on scientific findings and does not assume or promise souls, spirits, eternal life or humans being special. Idealism meanwhile clutches at the last gods of the gaps.

>>15293233
hi schizo. you abandoned the other thread where you got dunked on so hard you shit yourself and now want to come here and shit this thread up eh?

>>15293233

Your problem is that you're too stupid to realize that what you think you know is actually just faith in a belief.

>>15293270
he is a legit schizo, don't bother
>>15292123

>>15291363
>consciousness being an illusion
Illusions require a consciousness to have the illusion in the first place. So saying it's an 'illusion' just affirms the ontic status of consciousness. So this is a self defeating philosophy and one which descartes was also aware.
>As Descartes explained in a margin note, "we cannot doubt of our existence while we doubt." In the posthumously published The Search for Truth by Natural Light, he expressed this insight as dubito, ergo sum, vel, quod idem est, cogito, ergo sum ("I doubt, therefore I am — or what is the same — I think, therefore I am")
It also means the only means of epistemic justification in terms of affirming things about 'the outside world' world be through the means of interfacing with an 'illusion'. So dennett wants to declare our sensory data stream illusory or unreliable, which means our only means of determining the behavior of matter is 'illusory', and then his only means of studying the brain or ANY supposed materiality is 'illlusory, and so that means his whole philosophy is grounded in illusion, as is science.

>>15291398
He did no such thing. Even if he could some how 'prove' that some objectively observable asserted quantitative neural CORRELATE were in some way CORRELATED with some asserted subjective felt qualitative experience, this wouldn't show that qualia are 'just' some physical quantity in the brain neither would it 'prove' causation. You could (wrongly) INFER correlation, which is already a common thing to do, hence the name neural CORRELATE of consciousness being given to such things. The QUANTITY of dopamine isn't the felt QUALITY of the experience. The quantity of dopamine is one thing, the subjective qualitative experience is a completely different thing. And, this tells nothing of how objectively quantifiable/observable none-mental dopamine creates a subjective personal mental NON-OBJECTIVELY observable mental life and presents it to the observer for observation. This is the explanatory gap and the interaction problem.

>>15292671
Some people don't experience Qualia

>>15293474
Nobody does.

>>15295069
Based. Just because Dennett is a brainlet and a walking strawman doesn't mean "qualia" is anything more than navel-gazing and sophistry.

More like faggotism

>>15292834
Kant's case for "free will" is a case for moral autonomy via a system of ethics that is self-referential. I don't necessarily disagree with him, but most people wouldn't call that free will.

>>15295389
The main reason Dennett is seen as a walking strawman is that people don't understand his argument against qualia in the first place.

>>15295658
Free will is a postulate whose contrary, determinism, is unproveable in Kant's system, yet the existence of moral conscience seems to imply a purpose, and this purpose is could be an eschatologically ethical one.

>>15295389
>sophistry.
>when your opponent dunks on you so hard you literally shit your own pants just start accusing them of the arguments they used against you
You are either mentally ill schizo mirroring or a disingenuous and lying hack. You had never even heard of a sophist before I rekt you and all your sophist buddy retards the other day exposing you all as sophists incapable of making an argument that wasn't fallacious nonsense

>>15293291
>>15293270
this is most likely him >>15295389 mirroring. 99.9% chance

He learned a new word when he was getting rekt and though has no reasoning capabilities to understand what it even means will now start parroting like a schizo, because well, he is an actual schizo and that is what they do

>>15291363
>illusion
wat? If it's an illusion, who is it fooling?

>>15296127
>who is it fooling?
The brain

>>15297296
impossible, materialists dont have one

>>15291363
>All the evidence from neuroscience and cognitive science points towards consciousness being an illusion.
This is how being a religious fanatic sounds like.
You're so incapable of questioning authority you will believe stuff that is literally "not even wrong".

>>15291363

"cogito ergo sum", ever heard of it?

you can't trick yourself into being aware you're aware
some frog figured it out 400 years ago, why can't you?

>>15298223
deboonked long ago, there is no "self" doing the thinking, thinking just occurs

>>15298223
The cogito is question begging.

>>15291363
>illusion
Many mystics / ascetics have arrived at propositions like
>the self is an illusion
>desire is an illusion
>ego is an illusion
But consciousness itself as an illusion? Can someone steelman this? An illusion---compared to what hard objective reality? If such a hard, non illusion reality exists, how can we know of it, except by conscious experience?

>>15291363
It's inherently self-contradictory

If your system of reasoning eliminates the process that is itself doing the reasoning, it is clearly flawed and must be abandoned or updated

Refusal to update your beliefs because you like how they sound is a sign of autism

>>15298571
>It's inherently self-contradictory
How?
>If your system of reasoning eliminates the process that is itself doing the reasoning, it is clearly flawed and must be abandoned or updated
Where does it do that?
>Refusal to update your beliefs because you like how they sound is a sign of autism
This never happened.

>>15291363
What do you mean? Your average sci nigger is a vulgar eliminativist that holds the position that if it can't be measured right now then it doesn't exist. Emergentism could with supervalience is far more relevant especially in recent papers about the most powerful AI models. The first new sentient species will arise from a combination of interactions with itself, people, other models, systems etc..

>>15299052
>that holds the position that if it can't be measured right now then it doesn't exist
If you want to talk about unobservable and unmeasurable things like ghosts, magic, aliens or Santa Clause you're simply wrong on /sci/. /x/ is the place for that.

>>15291964
If the redness of red is an illusion, then the painfulness of pain is too. But it is impossible to be in the grip of soaring pain and claim that it is an illusion. The painfulness of pain is undeniable, and the position that it is an illusion is untenable. Therefore, the qualia of painfulness exist. Therefore, qualia exist. Therefore, eliminative materialism is false.

>>15298559
I'd say individual self-conscioussness is an illusion, in the sense that ONE undivided universal conscioussness is looking out of many material "windows", the seemingly seperate beings within the material world, and adopts the illusion of being limited to this particular window.
This separation into entities occurs because it's the principle of the material world, that it splits into "things" and those things can interact with other things but not with the whole. So whereever conscioussness looks out of such a material window, it can't help but adopt the illusion of being a thing among many others.

The consciousness threads on this board have shown me that NPCs are fucking real and it is terrifying knowing these things exist in the world and often times have power over us. God help us all

>>15298242
wtf is this even supposed to be mean you mind less troon

>>15291376
no explanations whasoever, waht a waste of time

>>15298272
>>15298242
> Apodictically true statement gets debunked
Kek.

>>15300496
Ok, but Dennett is doing a much more annoying "ASCCHHTUAAALLY" type of argument. Like imagine the "Adam Ruins Everything" guy, saying
>You probably certain you're seeing the color green now
>but wait! did you know you're not AKSCHCTUALLY seeing the SO CALLED 'color' '''''green''''''?
>what you're really seeing is the fact that you're a FUCKING MORON
>REAL philosophers know that the only objective reality is to be found in the MAGNIFICENT MIND of Daniel Dennett
This is literally what all Dennett posters sound like BTW.

Daily reminder that materialists are pseud, science denying sophists and their new tactic is "no you." They will never address any of the science or arguments.

>>15291363
I have an eliminative materialism every morning after my first cup of coffee.

>>15300868
yeah Dennett is cringe, I didn't mean to defend him with my post

>>15300938
Have you broadcast your announcement on enough planets yet?

>>15300981
Daily reminder that materialists are pseud, science denying sophists and their new tactic is "no you." They will never address any of the science or arguments.

>>15291363
The NPC theory is true. The problem is, since NPCs do not experience qualia and aren't really conscious, they advocate that nobody has it. It's kinda sad desu.

>>15301719
How do you know they don't experience qualia?

>>15302752
Because they don't understand the hard problem.

>>15304393
Objectively there is no hard problem. All information you could ever possibly gather with your external senses will tell you that brains are just bags of chemicals. There is no room for consciousness in the external world. The only consciousness that is real to you is your own, and only subjectively. If you observe yourself using your external senses, you will find no consciousness in yourself either. Objective and subjective are two distinct realms.

>>15300378
>But it is impossible to be in the grip of soaring pain and claim that it is an illusion.
No, it's not, since the pain can be regarded as an illusory imposition upon the underlying non-illusory consciousness which itself is free of pain. Of course this is not the position that physicalists take but it's a plausible option.

How is “qualia” is any different “experience”? Also, what is the idealistic argument about how certain anesthetics can remove the conscious unpleasantness of pain while still allowing the subject to feel the pain.

>>15305090
>the pain can be regarded as an illusory imposition
Calling the pain illusory does absolutely nothing to lessen the sting of it when one is under the duress of soaring, chronic pain.
>it's a plausible option
It absolutely is not. It is an utterly untenable position. The reality of pain cannot be denied merely by declaring it to be "illusory". The one thing you cannot deny when under the duress of pain is the fact that you are under the duress of pain, which means that whatever the pain is, it is not illusory. Pain is real, suffering is real, and we live in a world of suffering. Those are the hard facts. It would certainly be nice if we could simply hand-wave the suffering away by uttering the magic word "illusion", but the suffering in the world remains an undeniable and inescapable fact, and we are left with what we cannot deny. The denial of the real remains merely that: a denial.

>>15300994
Daily reminder that idealists can't answer the question: how do you drive a car that is an appearance of consciousness differently from a material car?

>>15306486
imagine being stupid enough to post this and think anyone who reads it doesnt instantly think "holy shit what a fucking moron"

>>15306496
Imagine name-calling because you can't make an argument.

>>15306486
Idealist here.

what does this mean? I don't understand what you're asking.

>>15306500
>I cant answer your question so I will just make up and incredibly stupid and meaningless question and then accuse you of not being able to answer to it!
You can never hide from me schizo, your inability to reason always instantly gives you away

>>15306518
>You still haven't made an argument nor answered my question. If you want to hold my attention any longer you have to come up with a new trick other than this copy/paste name-calling.
>>15306504
It means you make an unfalsifiable claim that doesn't contribute anything valuable to applied science.

The sentence "consciousness is an illusion" proves that consciousness is not an illusion.

>>15291363
I used to think that, but science doesn't seem to me to provide any evidence about consciousness itself. It provides some accounts of computation in the brain which remain incomplete, and it's clear that what gets computed in your brain is accessible to your consciousness. But how does that work, and where does consciousness itself come from? I know it's there, because I have it. Furthermore, if you take away some of my thoughts or senses, I will still be here. What if you took them all away? Nobody knows what would happen. Would something be left? Science is far from answering these questions and consciousness itself remains mysterious.

>>15291964
Saying that consciousness is an illusion is an equivalent of saying that anything you experience is an illusion, is it not? Illusion means something that is not real. So if consciousness was an illusion, it therefore would not be real and you would not really be conscious of anything.

>>15291964
Saying that consciousness is an illusion is an equivalent of saying that anything you experience is an illusion, right? Illusion means something that is not real. So if consciousness was an illusion, it therefore would not be real and you would not really be conscious of anything. If you are conscious about this very post, that already proves OP wrong.

>>15291363
>the most scientific stance
>not accounting for consciousness, the primary datum of all experience
lol
lmao even

>>15295389
>>15295663
>"how do you do, fellow conscious beings?"

>>15306640
>Furthermore, if you take away some of my thoughts or senses, I will still be here. What if you took them all away?
ninth jhana: cessation
https://www.dhammawiki.com/index.php/9_Jhanas#The_Ninth_Jhana:_Cessation

>>15306640
>But how does that work, and where does consciousness itself come from?
It's an illusion generated by the brain.

>Science is far from answering these questions and consciousness itself remains mysterious.
Dennett demystified it, scientifically.

>>15309226
>It's an illusion generated by the brain.
Generated by the brain to be observed by what?

>>15309226
>It's an illusion generated by the brain.
Another Anon here. Not an idealist and not religious, but the description an ''illusion generated by the brain'' seems to me an atheist way of creating a ghost,using sciency language to disguise religious thinking.

In other words: an atheistic materialist view must assume that consciousness is somehow identical to a brain process, not a brain product.

>>15309226
>It's an illusion generated by the brain.
Completely unsatisfying. Neuroscience can give some ideas about how the brain computes things, but how does it generate an illusion? What's an illusion without anyone to perceive it?

>>15304846
>According to my model consciousness shouldn't exist
>It does
>That doesn't mean my model is wrong, that means I don't have consciousness

>>15304846
Let me know when you put those chemicals in a beaker and produce consciousness

>>15309487
>>15309447
>>15308083
>>15308080
>sentience on a stick believer

>>15310104
>How dare you believe in the only proveable thing

>>15291363
It is more popular than you think, it's just that philosophy of mind uniquely selects for people who are not materialists.

>>15310125
You're asking for someone to call you an AI. Then you might say no you. Then someone might say if it looks and acts like a duck we must assume it's a duck. Then someone says what about zombie ducks. Then someone says zombies don't exist and so on.

Might as well read some more wikipedia/ Stanford.edu/Chalmers/Dennet because nothing is added to the discussion.

This place is such an anti-science sithole. Before 2016-17 almost everyone here was an eliminative materialist, as anyone with sufficient IQ should be

>>15310104
Daily reminder that materialists arguments are "b-because it just is!" Any time you corner them to actually prove anything they scurry off like rats. They are too stupid to realize this and they are low class midwits which is why they are sophists

>>15310349
>this board was so much better when everyone here was as stupid as I am
Sorry you are such a mediocre mind and that brings you such discomfort to discover, redit is a perfect place for you

>>15310166
That's a lot of words to say you are a faggot

>>15310349
Matter is an abstraction. People just caught on to the fact that saying that something exists totally non-experientially doesn't actually mean anything. Materialism is rooted in the fallacious infererence from the independence of the external world from our individual experience, to a completely unintelligible, empty notion of some kind of "non-experiential mode of being". But there are no "modes of being" other than how we exist; the only reason we have to talk in this circuitous way about consciousness and subjects of experience and so on is to help materialists cast off a conceptual/linguistic confusion.

>>15310360
>>15310395
It's my favorite troll again. Picrel is you. Now troll this:
>Daily reminder that idealists pretend not to understand that science is about making better maps of the territory, like a better model of the body to treat disease more effectively. Therefore, science needs to differentiate which map is better for such a goal. Idealism doesn't make such difference.

>>15310457
You sound like an unironic schizo that lumps random anons into some figure out to get him

>>15310457
Your "maps" lead to a septic tank full of shit eating retards

>>15310457
No need to troll you when you've conceded the argument gracelessly already.

>>15310913
>>15310938
>>15310951
Daily reminder that we need to feed idealist trolls. They're starving, can't buy any food because no one accepts money as just a mental construct. They can't get a job either, because their replies clearly demonstrate the inability of the nutrient deprived brain to construct an argument.

>>15312689
Idealists have outed themselves as trolls as they tipped their hand too much. They used to try to sound semi-plausible with their asinine sophistry and gish gallop, but now they're openly praising Deepak Chopra.

>>15312718
>the schizo is stealing my words, mirroring and replying to himself again
Don't you have a bowl of shit to eat somewhere?

>>15291363
>Why isn't eliminative materialism more popular even though it's the most scientific stance? All the evidence from neuroscience and cognitive science points towards consciousness being an illusion.

ur an illusion

How is consciousness an illusion?

If you are sitting there and using your consciousness to think, and come up with some theory like albert did or something like that, without your consciousness to guide the thinking process that never would have happened

>>15312721
You forgot to put your name back on after you were done samefagging, bodhi.

>>15312746
>schizo is projecting his samefagging again.
Ever wonder how I can find you in every thread schizo?

>>15312757
>Ever wonder why I always know when you're watching me?
...said the crazy homeless person to a confused bystander.

>>15312757
>>15312721
You don't just eat shit for breakfast, you also eat it for lunch, dinner, supper and as in-between snacks.

>>15312762
How was that massive bowl of hot, fresh shit this morning shit eating schizo?

>>15306453
Why do you think "pain still hurts" is supposed to be a rebuttal? Who says that conceptualizing consciousness as an illusion is supposed to do that? You have literally no idea at all what you're calling "utterly untenable."

>>15312770
Yep, that sure sounds like a post from a mentally stable individual!
I'm considering letting the feds know about you right now, I'd feel really bad if you shot up a school.

>>15306648
Illusions are real, they're just misleading. Dennett thinks consciousness is real. Trying to respond to the argument with these kinds of semantics don't engage with the argument at all.

>>15312773
You are the one who enjoys eating shit schizo. Calling people mentally ill when you eat shit for every meal is a bit schizo don't you think?

>>15312783
Alright, I submitted the tip. If you get v&, know that it's for your own good.

>>15312784
I'm sure they will take a fat steamer in the middle of the van when they come to pick you up for not taking your meds

>>15312790
Since when do you have a scat fetish anyway? Is that a new thing, or were you just hiding it until now?

>>15312795
anon bodhi is right just go with the men in the van. they will take a nice shit for you to eat so you can feel at home. They are gonna take good care of you. We are worried about you on this board and want t make sure you have plenty of shit to eat to eat in a safe environment.

>>15312806
Don't presume to speak for me, schizo.

>>15312778
I think the easiest first step to break the spell, for an honest audience, is to consider that consciousness is not a whole thing, but a composite: each sense adds a piece, like a music instrument in a symphony.

So there is vibration and the experience of sound, but no experiencer. It seems to me that honest materialists and idealist can at least agree on that.

So the repeated use of the word ''consciousness'' is misleading.

>>15312718
>openly praising Deepak Chopra
Lol but Deepak isn't even an idealist. In this video he promotes panpsychism.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7wKTyu4VqjU

>>15312778
The difference between something that is an illusion and something that's not is that one of them is real and the other is not. It's something like picrelated where the height difference between those two people is an illusion. In reality they don't have such difference in height. It doesn't exist. That's what an illusion means.

Imagine Dennet in a burning building, where someone needs to be saved. And Dennett said, "Don't worry, the pain will just be an illusion!" Wouldn't that be stupid?

>>15312825
Change your diaper because you're stinking up the place and might get a rash

>>15312909
As another Anon I agree that ''illusion'' is a stupid word to use. Your definition sucks though. Dreams are real and your picrel is real too, because the only reality we know is our perception. However, some perspectives are more valid and reliable than other perspectives for some particular goal, but how do we know? I think both /sci/ and /x/ are bullheaded about that. The postmodern era has broken the illusion that science is an independent arbiter of truth, but this failure has opened the gates to madness.

>>15312934
The definition of an illusion is literally misinterpreted sensory experience. Just like you would be misinterpreting that height difference. If Dennett says that consciousness is an illusion, that would mean that you are misinterpreting the fact that you're conscious. That in reality nobody is conscious, and we are some sort of NPC:s. It stupidity.

>>15312988
Why don't you actually read what Dennett has to say instead of arguing semantics? He's written quite a lot on the topic, you know.

>>15312988
Why don't you actually read what Dennett has to say instead of arguing semantics? He's written quite a lot on the topic, you know.

>>15313040
lmao, cool false fag trolling

>>15313040
I mean, philosophically speaking you can't really know if solipsism or whatever is true. We all agree on that. Now what? It's all nothing more than navel-gazing arm chair philosophy that doesn't really have anything to do with real life (much less with science or math). Reading about that would be the worst use of time imaginable.

>>15312689
>>15312718
Quit samfeagging

>>15291363
>consciousness being an illusion
I'm fully on board with "materialism" versus magic, but this is so dumb. Who is the illusion fooling? How can you even ponder whether it's an illusion or not without consciousness being real?

>>15291376
Reality is not a hallucination, but a human's perception of reality is. Your brain constructs a world around you based on your senses. This allows you to survive and reproduce. But what you see and feel isn't what's actually there, just your brains representation of it.

>>15291689
>I faced a class comprised mostly of zombies at Dartmouth a few years ago
The more i read this, the funnier it gets, its like a really dramatic comedy story about a lone guy close to the brink of insanity against relatively harmless computers who dont understand what all the fuss is about

>>15313304
so what is 'actually there'?

>>15291363
Because you end up with viewpoints like this.

>>15314023
Some more Twitter context. Yes, it is real.

>you cant know nothin you cant even know you know nothin
>am i being profound yet???????

>>15314514
Philosophy BTFO

>>15298571
>sign of autism
Sign of awareness that goes beyond shit limits*. Go ahead, subscribe to the realms guardian position. Uhhhh.

>>15316485
>Go ahead, subscribe to the realms guardian position.
wat

>hurr durr illusionism denies that consciousness is real, what an obvious absurdity

The confidence with which you morons refuse to engage with a different view. Do your peabrains even realize that the word "consciousness" has more than one meaning? Are you capable of stepping outside of your limited worldview for one second, just to realize that there might be something about the issue at hand that you failed to consider? Nah, just post Lanier's sophomoric piece again and don't think about it. Pic related, this is what Lanier looks like (he has no relevant education whatsoever btw). Read a fucking book you idiots. Check out Frankish if Dennett is too hard.

>>15317684
>ad hominem
>appeal to authority
>another ad hominem
>another appeal to authority
404 - argument not found

>>15317684
>(he has no relevant education whatsoever btw)

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jaron_Lanier
>At the age of 13, Lanier convinced New Mexico State University to let him enroll. At NMSU, he took graduate-level courses; he received a grant from the National Science Foundation to study mathematical notation, which led him to learn computer programming.

>>15317696
>>15317704
Check out the reading comprehension on these anons, not that I'm surprised.

>>15317873
>more ad hominem + projecting

>>15317684
>>15317873
you are seething therefore I reject your posts outright with no consideration to the content posted therein

>>15317873
You said he had no education. The wikipedia says he studied math and CS at graduate level. You were wrong. Deal with it.

>>15291363
Dennet says in Quining Qualia that people maybe refuse to accept such things because they are scared to be compared to mechanism etc etc.
I think he is right.
He showed years before Chalmers used qualia to refute materialism, that qualia are not trustworthy concept, full of paradoxes etc. Yet Chalmers then even said Dennet defined away qualia...
Im writing my masters on Hard problem now. I am frustrated how people tend to neglect argumentation and evidances of other thinkers. Seems to me no one does it anymore.
> I was proponent of property dualism and cartesian dualism once, then Dennet saved me from this ilussion

>>15320394
Nice larp, bro. I read Quining Qualia recently and he fails to give any evidence for his denial.

>>15320421
I would not agree with you friend. Firstly becauses as he mentions, he is not giving arguments but rather intuition pumps that switch perspectives.
He clearly shows that traditional conception of qualia as secondary propertys of conciousness only brought forward unsolvable paradoxes.
All brought out by an unverifiable assumptions of folk psychology.
But hey, i would like to hear where did he exactly fail for you?

>>15322129
I might also add confusing position of Dennet: He is not actually saying qualia or phenomenal dont existy but rather that traditional conceptions of it are failing hard.
So in one sense you are right, he is not refuting qualia in a sense of denying qualitative experiance, but refuting concept of it. Just as concept of phenomenal also.
This missunderstanding gave me aversion towarda him because how could anyone rational deny qualitative experiance. But on closer look when i saw what his goal is i changed my mind

>>15291363
>navel gazing thread for lamers who grandiosely presume themselves to be super intelligent philosophers

>>15322129
>He clearly shows that traditional conception of qualia as secondary propertys of conciousness
First of all, there is no "traditional conception". He merely argues against his own strawman definition and even in this fight he loses. "Secondary properties" is just another empty weasel word btw and not a definition.

>only brought forward unsolvable paradoxes.
Name one paradox. Not even Dennett dares to call his trivial drivel a paradox. There is absolutely no contradiction or logical inconsistency in his infantile thought experiments. They all merely serve to underline the hardness of the hard problem.

>But hey, i would like to hear where did he exactly fail for you?
The provocative tone of your post says the opposite. I highly doubt that you're willing to engage in an actual argument.

>>15322165
>First of all, there is no "traditional conception". He merely argues against his own strawman definition and even in this fight he loses. "Secondary properties" is just another empty weasel word btw and not a definition.

You are right there is no traditional conception, as in "traditional conception of substance or soul". Dennet takes our features "Second order properties" from concept of qualia held by proponents of them. While indeed he him self says it might look like a strawman, he explains he is arguing against conception of qualia which carry second order properties he analyzed.

As Dennet mentions him self Descartes and Locke talked about "ineffable and private properties of minds". If i am not wrong Aristotle also is
T. Nagel and D. Chalmers on other hand claim that qualia are subjective (~private)
N. Block takes them as immediate phenomenological qualities.

>Name one paradox. Not even Dennett dares to call his trivial drivel a paradox. There is absolutely no contradiction or logical inconsistency in his infantile thought experiments. They all merely serve to underline the hardness of the hard problem.

But he does.. does he not?
3. Traditional Paradox Regained
-Where he speaks of inter-subjective and inter-personal comparison of qualitative states?
Non the less i see the confusion, i should be more careful with words i choose.

The provocative tone of your post says the opposite. I highly doubt that you're willing to engage in an actual argument.
> Provocative? I am
genuinely interested in your ideas and perspectives. You have a harsh stand on Dennets philosophy, which i clearly don´t see but want to see. It can only help me out to be honest. I have no chance of discussing this IRL because of lack of interest or lack of philosophical education

>>15322332
Scratch Aristotle part.

>>15322157
>Says grandios presumed hyper-intellectual who judges others for being grandios and presuming they are super intelligent philosophers

>>15291363
Define consciousness.

>>15291399
Sorry to say, but if you lack qualia you're essentially a philosophical zombie.

>>15325210
Never understood zombie thing. How could zombie react to things while not having feeling of them?
Zombiests essentiali claim it is possible to have qualia without physical interaction with world. As Chalmers him self states by saying mental is 2nd aspect of matter aside of physical aspects. And mental as such does not depend on physical in any ways.

>>15325185
define define

>>15327520
>How can a thermostat react to temperature without feelings?

>>15327580
I can see why people don't like you. All you've done here is try to one-upmanship my post by parroting.
>Observe, I defeat the one who seeks to defeat the atheist, using his own argument, and in so doing I defeat both him and the atheist and everyone, aren't I the greatest buddha-like mind on 4chan?!

>>15327520
Here's a sentence a p-zombie can't parse:

There are no colors in nature.

>>15319971
>You said he had no education.
Holy shit, you dumbasses really, literally, unironically, cannot read.

>>15320394
>Im writing my masters on Hard problem now.
Chalmer's Conscious Mind is a glorious self-own. The difficulties and paradoxes that he has to live with are mind boggling, both the old dualist ones and the new ones that stem from bringing modal logic to the table. He actually reaches (and is forced to accept) the conclusion that you are just as unjustified in your knowledge of qualia as your zombie twin is.

Too bad none of the retards ITT will ever read that book. If they did, they might begin to understand why nobody with a clue takes qualia seriously.

>>15327582
You are confusing feeling of sadnes with feeling of rednes (emotion and sensory input) those are two different things.
So my question is still here:
How is it possible that zombie reacts to colors if he cant feel it (in sensory meaning). How can he reply to us "Yes thats red" without him having sensory input of 650nm (ot what ever wavelanght red color has).

>>15328301
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knowledge_argument

>She experiences a form of blindsight for color, in which she reports seeing no difference between a red apple and an apple painted gray, but when asked to point to the red apple, she correctly does.

>>15328379
>>15328377
>without sensory input
We have a misunderstanding, because I thought the likes of Chalmer claim that humans could not act the same without qualia.

>>15328301
Why couldnt he?
You people (Zombiests - i dont mean it in bad way i just refere to you as proponents of idea) allways asert such claims yet you cant back them up. You try to undermine good theorys by pointing out a possibility which it self cant be proven.
What if we all are zombies and robots? Can you disprove it? No you cant.
I often ask my friend, what would world look like if we all are zombies and robots? So ill ask you to. What would it look like?

>>15328411
No no, if i remmeber corect he claims we would but we wouldnt be "aware" of experiance. He trys to imply what Dennet calls carthesian theater. That there is X in our brain which feels the experiance.
I am not sure if i am clear enough on this... but something in this fashion

>>15328430
Excuse me, I went for a walk and I understand now. The zombie is meant to illustrate that materialism doesn't bridge the gap between the physical realm and the mental realm. Materialism correlates two worlds without connecting them. That seems to be a contradiction. So you raise a valuable question:
>>15327520
>How is it possible to have qualia without physical interaction with world?

>>15328663
Thinking further with picrel there seems to be 3 possibilities:
>1. there is factor X like complexity of structure that makes material start projecting a representation, however no such factor has been found;
>2. material is always projecting a representation (panpsychism), but same problem as 1 for representation on a higher level than individual components;
>3. accept as a brute fact that a mirror world/soul/consciousness is a hidden part of reality that manifests itself/takes form through material humans, very unsatisfying because no explanation for ''how''.

>>15328663
>>15328702
Indeed, but you see that is the point philosophers as Dennet try to show. There is no second world. There is nothing to build bridge to.
Concept of qualia represents this second world but many eliminative materialists try to show that this second world is nothing but illusion.
Meaning that this "mirror" world exists only as an idea and not as ontologicaly real thing. That it only exists in language.

>>15328747
Are you sure? I think another Anon made a good point when he said that Dennet rejects the concept of qualia but not the existence of qualia itself. Both the concept of qualia and the rejection of the existence of qualia don't make sense. Both lead to insolvabe problems.

>>15328415
>You try to undermine good theorys
1. Nature is just information.
2. There is no possible informational theory of color.
3. There is no reason for a robot to see color, so it doesn't, by Occam's razor.
>by pointing out a possibility which it self cant be proven
4.The fact that I am self aware and that I can see color is not a possibility, it's a fact, which I do not need to prove to anyone.
>What if we all are zombies and robots?
5. A robot wouldn't be able to ask this question, because it will never perceive what a not-p-zombie does. It can however parrot the question.
>Can you disprove it? No you cant.
6. I can't prove anything about anyone else. You may be a p-zombie, or a strange case of a perceiver who can't quite see that colors aren't information.

>>15328774
Now that you say this, you are right, nothing makes sense about philosophy of mind. They cant even agree on what exactly are they discussiong.
But yes, Dennet wants to eliminate concept of qualia which present qualitative experiance as something that cannot be explained by physicalism.
So while it is true the concept is rejected by him, the thing concept referese to is not denyed. Iow. The way upon which philosophers such as Chalmers look at conciousness is rejected.
Dennet thinks conciousness can be explained by neuroscience and cognitive science. But latest i have read, book by Elizabeth Irvine, she shows that no single scientific method had produced any kind of breaktrough in defining what conciousness is. Not even pseudo-methods proposed by Dennet.
Iow. They dont know what they are looking for and possibly whole concept of conciousness referes to something that does not exist..
Who the hell knows anymore.
Everyone is tallking about something that thwy cant agree upon what exactly is. ._.

>>15328960
>Nature is just information
What do you take by "Information"?

>Possibility
I was tallking about possibility of there being zombies

>PZ cant ask questions
Again.. why?

>Me being PZ
Sure i am zombie. Tbh my opinion is that not a single persone exists. We are just structures reacting to each other.

>>15328988
Tbh if i remember corectly, Chalmers, proponent of zombies, proposed information theory of HPC. He proposed that it could be answered via that. But i havent researched anything beyond that.
Did you mean that when you (i suposse) implyed that i think nature is just information?

>>15328977
Not to add that Kant demonstrated that knowing thing in itself is impossible..
Yet they try to know thing in itself..
Material, mental, plural, this and that.. all just an empty tallk.

>>15328977
>book by Elizabeth Irvine
Thanks for the tip.
>>15328977
>Dennet thinks conciousness can be explained by neuroscience and cognitive science.
I remember him telling the story that once upon a time we pondered why mice are living matter and stones are non-living matter. The answer was that mice have vitality an stones do not. Then we discovered cell biology...not a convincing argument for physicalism, but a remarkable jump in understanding nonetheless.

That got me thinking: were our ancestors not capable of deducting from various life forms that life might exist on a scale smaller than the eyes can see? The answer to explain consciousness might be staring us in the face right now, but we're totally oblivious. Weird, huh?

>>15329015
>knowing thing in itself is impossible
This claim needs to be nerfed. Consider a videogame: Donkey Kong doesn't know that his enemies are the most symbolic level of representation of hardware states, however, the functional relationship with his enemies is an objective truth, because whatever a crocodile in reality is, both the reality of the crocodile and the crocodile as representation are a threat. Additionally, math is agnostic. F=m*a no matter what these symbols in reality are.

>>15328747
>Concept of qualia represents this second world but many eliminative materialists try to show that this second world is nothing but illusion.
This is the wrong way around. People like Chalmers who argue about qualia are always playing word games where they end up circularly defining "qualia" to be "the experience of consciousness". Simply put the burden of proof is never met, and the mistake from the start was believing that burden did not exist with people claiming that "something extra". Much of what dennett has talked about in the past, or published, has been demonstrating how that played out historically the same way people arguing for "souls" kept moving the goalposts away from investigation or falsification.
https://ase.tufts.edu/cogstud/dennett/papers/AHistoryOfQualia.pdf
https://ase.tufts.edu/cogstud/dennett/papers/quinqual.htm
>Dennet thinks conciousness can be explained by neuroscience and cognitive science. But latest i have read, book by Elizabeth Irvine, she shows that no single scientific method had produced any kind of breaktrough in defining what conciousness is. Not even pseudo-methods proposed by Dennet.
Attention schema theory. Completely explains everything that can be demonstrated about a "subjective awareness" of consciousness and why one has an experience we label "consciousness".
Various public papers by Graziano on this https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4407481/
It also comports with neurological models of awareness and the real world as recursive simulations of stimuli. We already know the brain does this for raw stimuli, such as repeating sounds one will continue to hear as the brain itself simulates the expectation of the repeating sound. Unsurprisingly, the brain also does this with modeling its own attention and so on.
>>15329031
Irvine is a bit out of date on this if you ask me. See above.
>>15329055
NTA but congratulations you've self-discovered Bertrand Russell's criticism of Kant's idealism. funny to me is all

>>15329055
>>15329058
Oh but in the end both were wrong, though Russell wasn't on the grounds of supposing logical derivations wouldn't differ. i.e. 2+2=4 is necessarily true and independent of the mind conceiving things... contingent on shared axioms however. So further thinking of some ideal necessary objective language as Russell appears to have conceived, though this is all opinion anyway so I'm sure someone would claim otherwise, was where he went off the rails. That is where Russell went wrong, and then you have Wittgenstein's "Philosophical Investigations" correcting that mistake. Or the varied works of others, such as symbolically with Godel's work and how that pertains to Russell and the principia.

Anyway since it's axiomatic and one could not be said to "know" without conceiving along some axiomatic basis to begin with, Kant was in error. Russell erred in other regards but you are right in the limited scope of your rebuttal of that Kantian idealism. If the concept of "knowing a thing in itself" can be said to mean anything, anyway, to preempt the inevitable assertions to the contrary.

>>15291363
>All the evidence from neuroscience and cognitive science
nice. now post other sources' evidence too

>>15328266
I can see why you dfont have any friends and no woman wants to have sex with you. All you have done is squeal like a little bitch

>>15291363

It is not romantic or comforting

>>15291428
Cope bot

>>15329122
Pointing out people are making shit up without good evidence isn't a cope. The cope is making shit up without good evidence.

>>15291381
eliminative materialism is just cybernetics. Nothing new or philosophically interesting in saying that all brain states can be modeled in principle. Still doesn’t contribute anything towards our understanding of what mind is.

>>15329072
>>15329058
Thanks. You've given me a lot to read and think about. Time for me to shut up, lurk and learn for a while.

>>15292004
It’s an argument worth repeating until eliminative realists admit that their line of reasoning requires some form of idealism or panpsychism in order to be coherent.

>>15329151
Nah, nothing wrong with not knowing as much as someone who wasted his time finding out. Ask questions or argue points however you see fit. That's how most people learn most things and find out if they're full of shit or not. Right up until you're like me where 99.99% of any contrarian response amounts to trolling or some ridiculous narcissistic projection asserting everything I know from atoms is purely a fabrication of my "desire to assert my superiority" somehow.

You either become the dogmatist or live long enough to regret not embracing the comforting certainty domatism provides. I am very funny.

>>15329193
Skillful trolling is a great learning tool indeed. I've been reading the linked Dennet papers and I see how his criticisms seem to be unintentionally making the case for idealists, except that idealism is a fiction too so we are left with the Alan Watts kind of interpretation of Japanese Zen buddhism/Chinese Taoism: you're it! The moment you think about experience you create a non-existent object, like the word ''I'' refers to a fiction and the word ''nothing'' has no reference at all.

The problem becomes more clear with this example that Dennet gives:
>All of the great monotheisms propose that their God works through history, and I plan to show that, at least sociologically, they are quite right: that a great deal of history—triumphs as well as disasters—has been made on behalf of One True God. What could be more obvious?

You could likewise argue that ''law'' is a fictional entity: there are writings, police officers, lawyers, prosecutors, judges and behaviours, but ''law'' is nowhere to be observed. You can therefore eliminate ''God'' and ''law'', because history is a fiction and ''God'' is a fiction that is unnecessary. With that line of reasoning, you can't pretend that ''qualia'' is and physicalism is not a fiction. Dennet then still needs to explain
how eliminating ''qualia'' within the fiction makes sense.

When a car hits a pedestrian and we want to explain the accident, we create a story about at least two chains of causes and effects that we cut off arbitrarily but lead all the way back to the beginning of the universe. We don't want to throw the whole story away as an illusion, yet we throw the invention of cars away as an unnecessary causal part of the story, as if the driver being drunk is a cause that's more real than any other. That's an illegal move in the adventure game ''Quest for knowledge''.

>>15328747
>That it only exists in language.
>>15329604
>With that line of reasoning, you can't pretend that ''qualia'' is and physicalism is not a fiction.
To clarify: if you (Dennet) say that a word for an object relates to something real but words like qualia and consciousness do not, you're still telling a story. Completely unnecessary, because reality exists just fine like it does without needing our story about what it is.

>>15329604
>>15330018
The same way, or for the same reason, we disregard ad hoc hypotheses. Unnecessary additions that haven't met their burden of proof. I am not some acolyte of Dennett and I don't know how he would put it, or what words he uses, but I'm a simple man. "Cast out the bullshit" works for me, and the circularly defined "qualia" definitely qualifies as bullshit to me.

So I don't agree that it's all equivalent, and usually that false equivalence is used to peddle BS. Some ideas are far better at modeling reality than others, and qualia definitely fails to do fuck all on that score. Hence real scientists or real attempts at modeling not being the ridiculous circus of "muh qualia means muh consciousness means muh qualia", because they're not playing the "escape capture by avoiding being tested" game con artists and priests play.

>>15329031
Ahh yes, Elan Vital it was called i remember hahah.
I mean, the thing is, i allways ask my seld would we ever come here where we arw if there was not such theorys? In one sense such theorys pushed us here. In other they tend to clug progress.

>>15329055
Indeed my friend, and i would indeed defend F=ma.
What something actually is and why it is. If we go down to most fundamental level of reallity to subatomic particles, we cant say what they are im terms of something smaller anymore. We can just say they are subatomic particles with such and such propertys. That they are matter. But when we ask what is matter we fall into philosophycal jargon. And no theoryy materialisty dualist etc. has any evidance to prove that they are right or not.
Analogy if i may:
Imagine that you are a Native american watching for first time in your life a game of chess. You can clearly observe and then know how the game works. But because of language barier you cannot ask what exactly are those black and whitenpieces, why is game functioning as it isy what are they made out of (supposing chess is made out of unknown material). Apply this to us humans who observe workings of the universe. Native amwrican can trough time finde out troigh language, why and what. But we cant, we have no one to tell us which interpretation is right.
>>15329058
Indeed, agreed.
Thank you for reading material!
>>15330018
And you are corect. But we humans need storys. We build our world on it. I allways found it as some kimd of psychosis. Not in a sense to say we are mentaly ill. But as when kids play cops and robers. They imagine this game etc. and "live it out". I see human kind as such.

>>15329058
>kept moving the goalposts away from investigation or falsification.
THIS!!! AHHHH
This is the feeling i have when i research such topics. It is allways
>Yes but if..

I think i mentioned somewhere up, how Chalmers used to argue that mental does not superven on physical. Then when presented with implications it had on his theory (prop.dualism) that people can experiance things without there being physical contact with world, he just restated that yes indeed mental supervens on physical but cant be reduced to it. Which is okay. But why would he then in first place use supervenience to argue against materialists. Its just.... i dont know. It jist frustrates me.

>>15330227
Idealists, like theologians, thrive on the power of convenience. It should frustrate you that con men get away with blatantly being hypocritical while demanding certainty and exactness from the people they disagree with. Sadly they make quite a big salary for their various lies.

>>15330067
>false equivalence is used to peddle BS
Yes.
>>15330067
>Some ideas are far better at modeling reality than others
Uh oh...now you've done it. Jordan Peterson has entered the chat and I'm going to let him speak below.
>>15330217
>But we humans need storys. We build our world on it. I allways found it as some kimd of psychosis. Not in a sense to say we are mentaly ill. But as when kids play cops and robers. They imagine this game etc. and "live it out". I see human kind as such.
#MeToo
>>15330227
>This is the feeling i have when i research such topics. It is allways Yes but if..
I get that it's annoying. Not all critics of physicalism are con artists out to get you though. Now to borrow from Peterson: some stories are more valid and reliable than others and such is the hierarchy of truth. That's a problem for a physicalist, because then we can say like the MemeAnalysis youtuber that the world wide web is the physical manifestation of the mythological devouring mother/spider archetype. Hold on, don't scream
>>15330067
>false equivalence
just yet. I can't proof to you that They Live. I might be able to prove however that this quick and easy to apply story outcompetes the physicalist painstaking research. How much time, money and effort is a physicalist going to spend to build a body of published papers and reach the same conclusion but with different words? The www is not a ''devouring mother'' it's a ''cognitive resource diverting object'', okay? This problem with physicalism is more pressing when we need to make a decision urgently like to vax or not to vax. True physicalism seems to suffer from agnosticism, like Bret Weinstein recently explained in an episode about the biology of ants. Nature seems inherently ambiguous.
>>15330217
>Imagine that you are a Native american watching for first time in your life a game of chess.
Consider that chess is happening without players or intentions...

>>15291363
>consciousness is an illusion
this is literally the complete opposite of what is reduceable about ones experience of reality. consciousness is one of only a very few things that can be determined at all. determinism is a weird religion.

>>15330605
All this to say that differentiating between fiction/not fiction and reality/illusion is not helpful language. What we need is better stories than current physicalism, idealism, dualism, panpsychism and what have you.

>>15330605
>Uh oh...now you've done it. Jordan Peterson has entered the chat and I'm going to let him speak below.
This is funny to me. Game on. I'm not sure what you took issue with, because even if you extent the concept of "story" to "models" the fact remains some "stories" model reality better than others. Peterson can have a stroke over that all he likes.
>I might be able to prove however that this quick and easy to apply story outcompetes the physicalist painstaking research.
Pretty clearly not the case as bad ideas like "qualia" or "souls" get relegated to the trash bin by ever growing quantities of professionals and the public. Nothing stops a useful simplification that is less nonsense from entering the public lexicon or "story". You're just wishfully thinking at that point.
>All this to say that differentiating between fiction/not fiction and reality/illusion is not helpful language. What we need is better stories than current physicalism, idealism, dualism, panpsychism and what have you.
The entire history of epistemology after Bertrand Russell (Also hume because why not) has entered the arena to kick your cowboy ass Ultimate Showdown style. The main thing that matters, the main thing that is helpful, is EXACTLY whether or not any given idea you have is a good model of reality. Otherwise any a priori notion is indistinguishable and mere dogma among infinitely many alternative a priori notions.

Put simply, your rejection of the dichotomy is self refuting. Without such a dichotomy, you could not claim to have any grounds to prefer your current notion. On the contrary, you're appealing to the very same notion you're rejecting by making claims such as "out competing". Self refuting, and stolen concept, all in one. You don't get to appeal to my world with my dichotomies and then claim it isn't helpful to do so. Well, unless you are Peterson. I've got a million more "below the belt" hits like that one waiting so up to you how stupid you want to play this.

>>15330605
>That's a problem for a physicalist
I wouldnt agree. You missed a point with what i tryed to say but that is on me. I should have been clearer in my intention with that reply.
What i ment in summary is: We humans need explanations. Storys give this explanation. While some storys are interpretations of objectivity, others are blueprints of how it works. Now i belive you know which is more reliable.
>Consider that chess is happening without players or intentions...
Again you are missing the point, this time it is on you.
I am not asking you to imagine chess without intentions. I am trying to show that only thing we can know about reallity is "how" it works. Its mechanisms and principles. But never "why" and "what" it is. Because, not only we dont have a ground to claim there is "ehy" and "what" in the first place (to how), but also if there is it is in X that lays before our reallity. We cannot ask this X if our answers are correct for that would mean that we need to exit our reallity which we cannot.

>>15330614
I again dont agree.
But i will answer with a question.
Suppose you are right. Then how would you explain to people in non organic phsychosis that theyr interpretation of reallity is factual representation of it? Without using these distinctions.

>>15332689
Is not factual representation*